-L^.o- ,Ii


sufficient number of r.orkerr t', nroduce the .-:-verage required nro-
duction of single run.nu'.fcturer. Th1e unn-roductive period in the
industry is about fou.. .nontlhs in thie yea-r.

 "ost of the beaJed bnig : re irnaorted by retail distributors
,-ho sell direct to the consuiner, -o th'ct the American mPa.nufacturer
is not even -orotected by a j'bber'. -)rofit. The beaded bag indus-
try in America h.q not reveloned to ?-ny largp extent, because theli
existence denends almost entirely.I in producing tynes of bags that
are not competitive ,-ith foreign L.wde styles, and just as soon as
an American produced style hns nroven a good seller, it is sent
abroad to be copied and then sold in the United States for less
than the American made brg. Considering the unusual conditions ex
isting in this industry, it is annoarent th!.t if homew-ork in the is
dustry cannot be maintained, it would mean the complete abandonmel
of thebeaded bag industy in the United States.
 *il
 The nlan as submitted mr,. not answer every reouire.ment of the,
KI.A Home7ork Conmittee, but at lest it is an -.ttemnr)t to keen the
industry existent ond to give to thee 3.00 or more workers a livi
in accordance '9ith the code reruir'ements.

 Ans-'ering :"r. hoseriz'rei,.'p objections specifically: An invel
tigation "-as mrte nf l'oine-rorU. i.n the industry in accordance with
Section 10, Article 7 of tnhr. Ladies' handbagg Code. This investing
tion was m- He jointly by, the CodSe Directors and the Comnittee .&p-..
nointed by the Co,'e Authority. T'ie result of this investigation
contained in P brief, r, cony of '-hiclh -7s submitted to the Admini'.
tration someti.ne .o. The in`-estigntion included the testimony. q
manufacturer?, contractors -n.,1 home'-orkers. Onen hearings were .
held, .which -'ere a.tteni-'" o' t''.e .Adn nistr tion Member and all o
factors in the industry; nrr s.o n-"ivnte hearings with homeworkli
and contrrctcrn, ,-ho -ave orl ; n-, -"-?itten evidence. The Code Au
ority annroved the re-oort of the co 'I ittee and snnroved the nlan
which '"as pro-nosed by the Cole irrctors to control homework andmi
abolish chil-d 1abor in the ho.ne.-. i'.e original n)lan included the
grr ntin- of snecial ho:mieror: rote on hand-beading nnd crochet-
bending, in consi-lerntion for the nromipe of the beaded-bag nrniu-
fpcturerr to ept-'blish arnd ,'Iinta.in rn '.gent or agency under the
direction of tie Code Authority to fix niece work prices so the
homneworker could errn the mninimu-m "'-.Ee rate of the code. This D
was presented at a henrin' helW in '7Tshington on July 9, 1934, a|
which Assistant De-nut., ,orministr-tor Barr presided, but which was
never rnorovcd by the Administration. Pending the prnnroval of
nlaln, com-iliance "'ith the code m'.-e rates for homework was diffis
to obtain and the Code Dir'ectors did bring cases of non-comnlian
to the T.TA 21e.-'ion L. :3onrd, but no sat'isfectory decisions were eva|
ob t" ined.

 The nre.ent nl1n does not rely unon any voluntary cooneratli.
by the manufacturers., 'ealizins that the homeworker was entirelV|'
without the protection of the co6e becr-u.se they were emnloyed cha
ly by contractors, the Code Directors begnn an investigation of
contractor, home-orker reltitionp. They found in this the chief
in the homework oroblemn. It ras customary for such contractors


9811